Doing away with ruling would not threaten our liberty

Share via e-mail

Jeff Jacoby
appropriately reminds us of the Mother Jones headline after the November elections that said that Citizens United “turned out to be a big fizzle” (“Why the fuss on Citizens United?” Op-ed, Feb. 27). Thankfully, that much was true. But the implication that the acceptability of the Supreme Court decision is therefore proven is substantially off the mark.

Yes, we saw that obscene amounts of donated wealth didn’t win conservatives the candidates they sought. But what did Karl Rove and his billionaire brethren learn from that? That big corporate spending on elections just isn’t worth it? Or that they didn’t allocate enough money to do the job, and that next time it’s going to take more? Not too hard to call that one.

Jacoby’s prediction that a constitutional amendment striking down Citizens United would be the end of liberty as we know it is far-fetched. As he puts it, “all Americans would be [excluded from constitutional protection] whenever they united in corporate form.” No, they wouldn't. Just their corporation would.

Jim McGovern’s amendment, or whichever amendment ultimately does away with the dreadful Citizens United decision, isn't going to change things for the worse, as Jacoby implies. It’s simply going to put things back where they were. Which would be good for everyone, including Jacoby.